TARLOK SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31979/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01171688202506 November 2025Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case, the Court had held that Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the CBDT notification dated March 29, 2022, clearly indicate that the scheme of faceless assessment applies from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court found that the mandate of Section 144B and 151A, read with the notification, was lucid and unambiguous, and that office memorandums or other instructions could not override statutory provisions. Therefore, the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would defeat the object of faceless assessment. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly, if so advised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tarlok Singh, challenged a notice dated March 24, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent notice dated September 10, 2025, under Section 142 of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-2022. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The petitioner relied on previous judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in similar cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 24, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice dated September 10, 2025, under Section 142 of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-2022 are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority, in light of the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue Section 148 notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 and Section 151A of the Act, 1961, and CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices, citing the CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Income Tax Department) did not dispute that the issue was covered by the aforementioned decisions in favour of the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142,Section 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-31979 of 2025 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-31979 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: November 06, 2025

Tarlok Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer and others

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present: Ms. Radha Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate and

Mr./Ms. Rana Gurtej Singh, Muskaan Gupta, Muskan Chauhan,

and Tanya Kumar, Advocates

for respondents-Income Tax Department.

**** LISA GILL, J.

1.

Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 24.03.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’) and notice dated 10.09.2025 under Section 142 of the Act 1961 for Assessment Year 2021-2022 and all subsequent proceedings on the ground that Issuing Authority had no juri iction to issue the same, in view of circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by judgment passed by a Co-ordinate RITU SHARMA 2025.11.10 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31979 of 2025 (O&M)

-2- and others in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509- 2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. 3. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. Relevant portion of decision dated 19.07.2024 in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) reads as under:- “15. From the perusal of Section 151A, it is quite evident that scheme of faceless assessment is applicable from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148 as well as 148A. Clause 3(b) of notification dated 29.03.2022 issued under Section 151A clearly provides that scheme would be applicable to notice under Section 148. Even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that assessment proceedings commence from the stage of issuance of show cause notice. The object of introduction of faceless assessment would be defeated if show cause notice under Section 148 is issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer. The respondents are heavily placing reliance upon office memorandum and letter issued by departmental authorities. It is axiomatic in tax jurisprudence that circulars, instructions and letters issued by Board or any other authority cannot override statutory provisions. The circulars are binding upon authorities and Courts are not bound by circulars. The mandate of Section 144B, 151A readwith notification dated 29.03.2022 issued thereunder is quite lucid. There is no ambiguity in the language of statutory provisions, thus, office memorandum or any other instruction issued by Board or any other authority cannot be relied upon.”

RITU SHARMA 2025.11.10 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-31979 of 2025 (O&M)

-3-

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute that the issue involved is covered in favour of petitioner in view of abovesaid decisions.

5.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024. 6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(LISA GILL)

JUDGE

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) November 06, 2025

JUDGE rts

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes / No Whether reportable: Yes / No RITU SHARMA 2025.11.10 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →